United Liberty
Chris Christie, NOOOOO!
Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:11am | posted by Jeremy Kolassa
Fudgeknuckles. You can never be happy with politicians as a libertarian—just when they look like they’re on the path to true limited government, free markets, and individual liberty, they come out with something stupid like this:
“I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman,” Christie said. “I wouldn’t sign a bill like the one that was in New York.”
That sound you are hearing is my head slamming into my desk at Warp Six.
I admit, I was becoming a fan of Chris Christie. The way he was socking it to the parasitical public unions in New Jersey was inspiring. Sure, he was not perfect—he probably could have cut back more in some areas—but considering political inertia, he was doing a tremendous job.
Naturally, while I’m feeling really great about this guy, he throws a social conservative curveball just to keep me a grumbling libertarian.
The article does state that he will push for civil unions in New Jersey, as if, “Well, he’s not so bad.” But it is, in fact, horrific: what Christie is saying is that he supports discrimination based on sexual orientation, a boundary that says “You are not like us, you cannot be like us, you cannot have the same rights and privileges as us.” That’s a very disturbing thought. What I don’t understand is how it meshes with the small government ethos of most conservatives. Let’s end regulation and meddling in the economy, let’s make government smaller, cheaper, and more efficient—but then try and wedge it into the bedroom?
The New York law was, in fact, a fantastic one. Not only did it legalize same-sex marriage, it also included a clause that permitted religious instititutions to “opt out.” The Catholic Church doesn’t have to sanctify gay marriages, though a couple could still easily get the secular marriage license. And that’s great: we find no trade-off between two aspects of individual liberty here, unlike with most government edicts which destroy one set of liberty by trying to promote another (usual false) one. Now personally, I would prefer if the government got out of marriage altogether, but since that’s not going to happen for some time, this is a substantial move in the right direction.
Chris Christie is wrong, plain and simple. It is not ethical to deny the right of marriage to anyone based on their sexual orientation. To do so runs completely counter to the small-government image he has been building lately. But then, I shouldn’t be surprised. Just—as usual—disappointed.
Kudos to you for zeroing in on the flaw with the so-called “conservatives”. The Republican Party has been vociferous in claiming that to be truly conservative, you must also be socially conservative. Yet the whole concept of “limited government that doesn’t intrude on individual liberties” (the central point of what conservatism is all about) is blown to bits once laws or amendments are added that effectively discriminate and attempt to enforce certain behaviors. How can you champion personal liberty and then dictate and limit with whom you can form a relationship? It’s pure hypocrisy. Chris Christie should be especially ashamed because New Jersey supports the right for same-sex couples to marry. Every single poll and survey has shown that the majority of New Jersey citizens supports this, yet Governor Christie, as is normal for politicians, only listens to the “will of the people” when it supports his own views, and ignores the will of the people when it’s in conflict with his own.
You’re right Jeremy, I’m proud. <3. Thanks bud.
Everyone, I’d like you to meet one of the architects of the gay marriage movement in New York, Lauren.
There is one legitimate libertarian argument against gay marriage, aside from the more general point that the government shouldn’t be in the business of defining what marriage is. That is that legalizing gay marriage might result in changing the terms of existing contracts without the consent of one of the parties.
I’m thinking of an employment contract that includes spousal benefits. It seem to me unjust for the employer to be legally required to provide benefits to a same-sex spouse, something he never agreed to do and might not have agreed to, because the government has changed the legal meaning of the words in the contract. I don’t know enough of what has been happening as gay marriage has been legalized to tell how serious a problem this is.
But I doubt that was Christie’s point.
I’m not sure it is at all. Most companies are offering legal benefits to same-sex couples anyways. But furthermore, in your example, these spousal benefits do not specify an opposite sex spouse, they just specify a “spouse.” Now, under your logic, an unmarried employee who gets married to an opposite sex spouse would also be “changing the contract.” These same-sex couples weren’t married, but are getting married now. I don’t see what the problem is. The logic seems foolish to me.
Post new comment